The Media

Recently the media had much to publish on the topic of Russia and Ukraine with some news headlines misstating the crux or the facts of the matter and how the impasse evolved between the two countries.

The Origin

Before any legal process ensued, events had occurred prior to filing such papers. This is clear. As early as 16 January 2017, the Ukrainian Government filed an Application Instituting Proceedings against the Russian Federation in the International Court of Justice. In broad terms, the Application was brought on the "Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Now this might be confusing to the layman, who should not jump to conclusions too early without reading the intricacies of these claims. A broad spectrum of claims were brought under the following headings:

A: The Russian Federation's unlawful intervention in Ukraine's turn towards Europe and the Revolution of Dignity

B: The Russian Federation's sponsorship of terrorism in Ukraine, which was branched out into other specific claims, namely:

B1. The Russian Federation's supply of arms, financing, and training with knowledge that its proxies would attack civilians; and

B2. The attack on Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17; and

B3. The shelling of Ukrainian Civilian Populations; and

B4. The bombing of civilians in Ukrainian cities; and

B5. The Russian Federation's refusal to co-operate in preventing and investigating the financing of terrorism.

C: The Russian Federation's campaign of cultural erasure through discrimination in Crimea, which is branched out into the following sub-claims:

C1: The illegal referendum amidst a climate of discrimination

C2: Discrimination against the Crimean Tatar community; with the following sub-claims:

C2(a): Political and cultural suppression; and

C2(b): Suppression of culturally-significant gatherings; and

C2(c): Disappearance and murder; and

C2(d): Arbitrary searches and detention; and

C2(e): Media restrictions and harassment; and

C2(f): Suppression of Tatar-language education.

C3: Discrimination against the ethnic Ukrainian community in Crimea; with the following sub-claims:

C3(a) Suppression of Ukrainian-language education; and

C3(b) Suppression of culturally-significant gatherings; and

C3(c) Media restrictions and harassment.

You can view the detail on each claim here.

Off course, as it is with all court cases, various procedural aspect have taken their time and Ukraine requested provisional measures from the Court. The Court made an order on 19 April 2017 that Russia must refrain from imposing limitations on the ability of the Crimean Tatar community to conserve its representative institutions, including the Mejlis, and ensure the availability of education in the Ukrainian language. Various other legal process (which is insignificant for this article) ensued and the matter is opposed by the Russian Federation who filed their preliminary objections on 12 September 2018. It included the following objections:

1. The necessary mental elements with respect to terrorism financing on interpretation of Article 2(1) of the Convention:

1A "knowledge"

1B "that they [the funds] are to be used"

1C Ukraine's interpretation of "knowledge"; and

2. Interpretation of the acts of terrorism within the meaning of article 2(1)(a) of the Convention; and

3. Interpretation of the acts of terrorism within the meaning of article 2(1)(b) of the Convention:-

3A: "intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian"

3B: "the purpose of such act, by its nature and context is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government"

Chapter IV deals with Volnovakha, Mariupol, Kramatorsk, Avdeevka, the bombings, killings and ill-treatment.

Chapter V has quite the range of objections which include but is not limited to the following:

V1: The text, title, structure and drafting history of the Convention confirm that State Responsibility for financing terrorism is excluded from its scope; and

V2: The Convention does not regulate State terrorism financing; and

V3: Provisions in regional terrorism conventions, and in Security Council Resolution 1373, on State financing for terrorism refute Ukraine's argument that State responsibility for financing terrorism is implicit in the Convention; and

V4: State practice considers the Convention a standard criminal law convention that does not address State Responsibility for financing terrorism; and

V5: State responsibility for terrorism financing continues to be the most divisive issue in the ongoing negotiations on a Draft Convention, rendering an implied obligation not to finance terrorism under the current Convention implausible; and

V6: Ukraine's reliance on the International Court of Justice Bosnian Genocide Judgment is inapposite since the Genocide Convention and the ICSFT Convention are materially different.

The objections raised by the Russian Federation is in fact extensive and it stretches on for 10 Chapters of legal discourse. Ukraine the filed a written statement on the objections raised by the Russian Federation on 14 January 2019. Public sittings were held and on 8 November 2019, 7 renowned Judges deliver their opinions, statements and declarations. Time limits are fixed for the filing of a reply by Ukraine on 8 April 2022 and a Rejoinder by the Russian Federation on 8 December 2022.

On the face of it all, despite the Presidents from various countries travelling to and fro to have 'discussions' and 'giving their opinions or political stance' to the media, much of these matters are to be decided in the International Court of Justice. Nothing which these politicians do now or have done translates into tangible evidence or the course of events pending the outcome of the dispute between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. It is certainly not the story painted by media houses over the globe and when regard is had to the actual origin and events which are still to unfold between the State Parties, we look forward to the decisions, opinions, statements, declarations and finally the Order of Court which is to be published by these competent individuals who possess all the necessary information on the matter to adjudicate it and make a ruling. Until then, off course, the State Parties should keep their wits about them and respect dispute resolution process by not taking the law into their own hands.

You will find all the information you can possibly need on this matter here.

The information contained in this site is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in this site without seeking legal or other professional advice. The contents of this site contain general information and may not reflect current legal developments or address your situation. We disclaim all liability for actions you take or fail to take based on any content on this site. The operation of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and VKrum. Any information sent to us via e-mail or through this site is not secure and will not be treated as confidential.